Skip to main content

About your Search

20130121
20130129
STATION
MSNBCW 24
MSNBC 17
CSPAN 8
KNTV (NBC) 8
WRC (NBC) 4
CSPAN2 3
WJLA (ABC) 3
WMAR (ABC) 3
CNN 2
CNNW 2
KGO (ABC) 2
WBAL (NBC) 2
KTVU (FOX) 1
LINKTV 1
( more )
LANGUAGE
English 97
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 97 (some duplicates have been removed)
this is still a fight between how much spending cuts and how much taxes. the president got his -- >> well, simpson-bowles said let's get rid of the high tax rates. the president doesn't seem to be in favor of that mpt you had $1 trillion in tax increases with obama care. he just got new tax increases at the beginning of this month. and now they are calling for even more tax increases, and they are not calling to cut spending. they are calling for spending increases. so basically what they're saying is, they want americans to pay more so washington can spend more. that's not going to help the economy, and that is not going to close the gap and balance the budget. the reason we want to balance the budget is not to make the numbers add up. we think that's necessary for growth and opportunity. we think it's necessary to make sure that our kids don't get this debt that they won't be able to handle if we keep going down the path we are on. >> but there are certainly those in the white house who would take issue with what you said or might even say to use your own criticism that's a straw man ar
to raise tax rates. a lot of the democrats i talked to and even the white house said they are willing to do tax reform where there could be additional revenue. are you opposed to any additional revenue that could come from tax reform? >> we offered that back in the fiscal cliff negotiations. the president got his additional revenues. that's behind us. those higher revenues occurred, and now we need to focus on getting spending down. >> here is the leverage question. senator schumer said we didn't just get our revenues. we got some. there has to be more that are part of it. the president will say that. so as you are -- >> are we for more revenue? no, we are not. >> even if it's from tax reform? >> if you keep raising revenues, you're not going to get different tax reform. i know you didn't want a chart, but i'm kind of a chart guy. this dream line shows you the historic taxes. the red line is tax increases. the red line, where spending is going. spending is the problem. revenues aren't the problem. if you keep chasing higher spending with higher revenues as they're calling for, you're going
, a trillion dollar tax hike took effect. the senate voted to prevent tax hikes and 98% of americans. and made the lower tax hikes permanent. president obama got less revenue than the speaker offered in the first place. in short, there is no way we were going to get a better deal for the american tax payer. we wanted to keep tax hikes low for everybody. we wanted to cut spending. otherwise every single taxpayer would have paid higher taxes and our economy would have gotten into a nosedive. the decision was simple. if you think a bill needs to pass, you vote for it. many of my colleagues voted the other way. i respect their decision. prudence demands mutual understanding, especially among friends. my colleagues and i saw the same thing. we wanted a smaller, smarter government. we simply differed on the means. that is the difficulty of governing. it should not be a cause for division. our tactics will differ from issue to issue, but our strategy remains the same. in the next four years, opportunity will not come easily. we have to pay our bills and make sure we can pay our bills tomorrow. to do
: president obama, sworn in yesterday, promising to change the tax code, immigration laws, and act on climate change. good morning, everyone. we will spend the first part of this morning's "washington journal" on yesterday's inaugural address. for democrats, 202-585-3880. for republicans, 202-585-3881. for independents, 202-585-3882. also, send us a tweet, twitter.com/c-spanwj. post your comments on facebook, or you can e-mail us. journal@c-span.org. let me begin this morning, this is "the wall street journal," had line. "obama vows aggressive agenda." "he is looking beyond the fiscal battle set to dominate the coming weeks." and then a side story, an analysis. "the president is set to fight over a new to do list." "the inauguration was not only grayer, he sounded less like a man ready for lofty flights and more ready for ground battles." and then here is "the washington post," this morning. there had lyme, "we must act." -- there had line, "we must act -- their headline, "we must act." "the new york times," this morning, "a limitless vision." "speech gives quiet goals center stage." "our jou
, ronald reagan on everything from tax increases to death ceiling increases to banning assault weapons. the only thing they claim to admire as much as him, is the first president, lincoln, if they heard lincoln say this in the first inaugural address they would have booed him. "no organic law can ever be framed with the provision applicable to every situation. no foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. that is abraham lincoln calling the constitution organic law. and saying that the constitution could not possibly have anticipated our every governing question. i invite you to imagine if you will, just close your eyes and just imagine the right wing . . >>> welcome to "the ed show" from new york. the conservatives are whining about president obama's speech. it's just too liberal. i say welcome to the mainstream. let's get to work. >> it's morning again in america. >> the era of liberalism is back. >> the country is awake to the new center left america, and conservative elites can't stand it. >> the republican
balancing the budget while the country is getting older and while you won't raise taxes is really hard. to do it you have to embrace some really ugly policies, so to understand the trap, what they're about to tell the american people they're going to do you need to quickly understand what is in ryan's original budget. he didn't balance until 2038. so i made a graph for you. i want to be clear away they are. they're the numbers that paul ryan himself gave the congressional budget office. they are his own vision of his plan. they're what happens if everything goes exactly how he wants it to. and so what you're seeing here is the definition between paul ryan's most recent budget and the law as it is currently read. and it is two different things, ten years from now. this gives you a very clear idea up until now of what ryan has been cutting. first, people tend to think that ryan's budget is about medicare. but that is not where he gets savings, at least in the first ten years. it is only about half of gdp, or 10% of his cuts. then, he doesn't touch medicare at all. then there is this cate
with incentives to take risks and bring ideas from dream to reality. tax credit to help early-stage companies to develop andit's worked in other states, and it's something we can do this session. i will work with the legislature to make it more desirable for small and medium size businesses to hire more people in washington. we must also do a better job commercializing the technologies connecting the dots from the classroom to the laboratory to the marketplace. and no economic strategy would be complete without a transportation plan that facilitates this growth. this session i expect to work with stakeholders that have already committed to a bipartisan plan to build an infrastructure for the next generation. in the next ten years, our population will grow by approximately three quarters of a million people, but we will not be adding one more square inch of dirt. to honestly address our recognize that creativity is just as important as concrete. i want us to turn our innovative spirit towards crafting a transportation package that includes roads, trains, light rail, buses, bike routes and othe
on various things with regard to economic reform, tax reform, immigration reform. i think that there's little doubt the president would be willing to compromise if the other party is willing to meet him part of the way. the other party job is to see how much it came at for its side and giving the issues we've been through, such as the fiscal cliff, the fact is there's no way out of these issues without compromise. i do think we will see compromise on something like immigration reform because democrat fixes destiny and the republicans as well as democrats recognize that they have to show some support for immigration reform if they're not going to in the case of republicans, lose the hispanic population permanently to the republican party. so the president has already, i believe, shown willingness to compromise and all that data show that republicans are the party has moved further to the right and democrats have moved to the left, although both have moved to the extreme. i think we're going to see the president because he won the election been tough for rhetorically about not compromising, alt
-class people, people who are working and paying taxes. we need to have them here for a functioning economy. i am looking for ways to fund more of that kind of housing, particularly for a central employees like teachers, nurses, first responders. we need to make sure that our development is a transit- oriented. we do not want to encourage suburban sprawl. we want to do infill housing so that people can live near where they work and near public transportation. >> let's talk about public transportation. is there adequate muni service in your district? what is the parking and traffic situation like? >> muni is not near where it needs to be. in the caster, we have the subway. -- in the castro, we have the subway. a can be terrific or frustrating. we are next to the bart line. in other parts of the district, is unreliable. the writeridership is lower bece of unreliability. other lines are not as frequent and people not think of using them. we have a particular problem in diamond heights. the neighborhood is served primarily by the 52 line. it is incredibly unreliable. the buses miss runs-------. fo
taxes. this happy couple used capital one venture miles for their "destination wedding." double miles you can "actually" use. but with those single mile travel cards... [ bridesmaid ] blacked out... but i'm a bridesmaid. oh! "x" marks the spot she'll never sit. but i bought a dress! a toast... ...to the capital one venture card. fly any airline, any flight, anytime. double miles you can actually use. what a coincidence? what's in your wallet? [ all screaming ] watch the elbows ladies. [ breathes deeply, wind blows ] [ male announcer ] halls. let the cool in. has oats that can help lower cholesterol? and it tastes good? sure does! wow. it's the honey, it makes it taste so... well, would you look at the time... what's the rush? be happy. be healthy. >>brian: getting heat for suggesting he may make changes to his own life based on the increasing tax burden placed on successful americans especially in california. even forbes, a magazine featuring successful people, is jumping on the band wagon writing -- quote -- "mickelson should stop whining and give thanks for your good fortune." now h
be making a bigger case about taxes, spending, shoot for the mountains and not get dragged down on what he says is clearly democrats and the president's turf. >> we have to focus, steve, i believe republicans -- i've said it time and time again -- on taxes. on cutting spending. on saving entitlements. on saving america from this crushing national debt. it grew $6 trillion under barack obama over the past term. and try to avoid some of these other issues. but i hear bobby jindal's new federalism on crack talking about cutting federal employees by three-quarters, et cetera, et cetera. that ain't going to happen. with the changing demographics and where america is and where it's going over the next 20 every 30 years. >> that's the issue. if you separate it, i think the first part not being the stupid party anymore is sort of a no-brainer. why would you go around insulting important interest groups. >> women. >> yeah, the 47%, all that stuff. but then you get to his policy proposals, and i don't think he's in the mainstream of this country when you talk about 25% of the government buildings, c
like payroll taxes for medicare and social security are putting u yo in a taker category. when the president does kind of a switcheroo like that, what he's trying to do is we are maligning these programs. so it's kind of a convenient twist of terms to try and shadow box a straw man in order to win by default. >> steve, interpret that for common people like me. because there's a lot of double talk there that i didn't hear him explain it that way when he said it originally. and it doesn't make much sense to me now that he has said this. >> no. and the entire message of the last few years of the republican party whether it's makers versus takers, whether it's the 47% theme. the 47% who supposedly don't pay taxes. they're talking about federal income tax. not state taxes, estate taxes, these sorts of things. that the republican party ran into this big problem in 2012 where that message alienated people. >> let me show you what he said in 2005 about social security. now he's talking about how people paid in and it's earned. but he said -- let me quote it. it says -- this is a quote.
things with economic reform but tax reform, immigration reform. i don't have a crystal ball but i think that there is little doubt that the president would be willing to compromise if the other party is willing to meet him part of the way. but the other party's job is to see how much it can get for its side and given the issues that we have been through such as the fiscal cliff, the fact is there's no way out of the issues without compromise but i do think that we will see compromise on something like immigration reform because demographics is destiny and the republicans as well as the democrats recognize that they have to share some support for the immigration reform if they are not going to in the case of the republicans lose the span of the population permanently. to the republican party. so, the president has already i believe shown a willingness to compromise, and all of the data shows that the republicans are the party that has moved to the right and the left although both parties are extreme, so i feel that we are going to see the president because he won the election to be tough
line is historic tax rates, how much we raise in taxes and the blue is how many increases president obama is calling for. the red is where spending is going. spending is the problem, revenues are not the problem. if you keep chasing them they will hurt economic growth, shut down the economy and won't get the budget balanced. >> what i heard the president say was programs like social security and medicare and med aid critically important for our future and we need to have a bipartisan commitment to make them work. bob and i have been in a lot of meetings talking about deficit reduction. we need reform in the programs that mean they will live on to serve future generations. that's the message i took from the president. >> referring to bob corker to the left of the screen. the president has a full plate. not just the budget but the issue of guns, and this week he heads to las vegas for a speech about overhauling immigration. so the second term is already kicking off with plenty on his plate. >> all right. peter alexander, white house correspondent, thank you so much. >>> we want to tur
three weeks. one was on sandy, the other was on raising taxes. in both cases obama had a bipartisan majority in the house. that is a governing majority. he's going to have it on immigration and also on the debt ceiling. not sure he's going to have it on guns, but he's going to drive the really hard-line republicans crazy because he's going to be able to break off 40 or 50 of them for all these other things. chris: that seems to be true as much as the opposition is hotter and perhaps hardening out there on the right. it does seem that the center right and the center are in play and obama is making his move toward them successfully. >> their governing philosophy coming in is that the fever would break among the tea party folks, among the hard right, and also that just folks in the house would sort of move to the boehner philosophy, which is a governing philosophy. the sort of -- chris: in other words, you don't need a majority of the republicans to rule. >> you break the rule, which is what he's done on these big-ticket items. they have been meeting over these last couple of days to f
spending cuts and tax increases. that 1.2 trillion is not that heavy a lift with a functional congress. but we can't get there if we're playing around with this crazy legislation, that you yourself are not going to vote for. >> remember when you got the house back from nancy pelosi, first thing you did was go out there on the floor and read the constitution. and the new rule was going to be every piece of legislation comes with a constitutional explanation -- and now, here you are in straight violation of the 27th amendment. >> you give me the choice of which side to argue before a court i'm arguing that this is unconstitutional. >> it sounds like complete disarray up there. boehner and cantor, going forward, as far as you can tell you don't know. boehner wouldn't say if he has the votes, democrats are not sure. what should we do? should we vote for it so it gives us breathing room or continue with this chaos? isn't it chaos? >> well, there is always a degree of uncertainty -- i have been elected in office off and on since 1982. okay? and the alabama legislature and here in the united
to stand out in a crowd, whether it's on taxes or regulations or in the past on immigration, you were completely shunned from the party. finally there's an understanding we've got to grow the party. what we've been saying for quite frankly for years and getting attacked, we want colin powell on our side. we want moderate republicans on our side. if we're going to be the majority party again, we've got to spend the party. >> are you saying they're pushing her out of the spotlight as part of making the stupid party less stupid? >> what i'm saying is that sarah palin represented a time and place in american politics. and not 2008 so much as 2010. and that time is passing us very quickly. and party leaders are finally understanding that. you know, roger els, i brought up richard haass, roger els before. roger els saw this coming well before the 2012 election. he had realized what had gone wrong. not only at his network but also in the conservative movement of the republican party. that's why he was running out and talking to chris christie saying, get in this race. you can save this party
year to try to convince voters to approve a tax hike to deal with california's bumming. well, he successfully succeeded in doing that. so now his clout couldn't be lier and today we expect him to outline his vision on other issues beyond what last year was which was all about taxes and that's going to include as you said education, a big one. he is going to reveal a plan we expect that will offer more money and resources to poorer schools or those student who are more in need than others and also to address public universities to try to compel them to cut costs to students as well as making courses more prevalent online. infrastructure is another big one as he is expected to push for high speed rail and to talk act water issues and trying to build two massive tunnels to move water from northern california to southern california. part of today's state of the state address will be very positive in tone. the governor expected to point out that california is leading the nation in job growth and that the state's credit rating has improved dramaticly over the past several years. last b
children die in the streets. it's shocking. that's next. officemax knows... ...tax time can be...well...taxing. so right now we'll give you... ...$10 off any turbo tax deluxe level software or higher! find thousands of big deals now... ...at officemax. then i read an article about a study that looked at the long term health benefits of taking multivitamins. they used centrum silver for the study... so i guess my wife was right. [ male announcer ] centrum. always your most complete. you know it even soafter all these years.ight. but your erectile dysfunction - you know,that could be a question of blood flow. cialis tadalafil for daily use helps you be ready anytime the moment's right. you can be more confident in your ability to be ready. and the same cialis is the only daily ed tablet approved to treat ed and symptoms of bph, like needing to go frequently or urgently. tell your doctor about all your medical conditions and medications, and ask if your heart is healthy enough for sexual activity. do not take cialis if you take nitrates for chest pain, as this may cause an unsafe drop in blood pr
a religious organization could own. some taxed religious property. others banned given groups' practices. i'm thinking, for example, eventually various states in the southwest banning polygamy, for example. >> host: so when it came to massachusetts, talk about massachusetts or pennsylvania. of we're here in pennsylvania, as a case study of states regulating religion. >> guest: sure. pennsylvania, for example, had an active blasphemy law which we would nowty of as -- now think of of as starkly unconstitutional. and the last case, um, that was brought, the last criminal prosecution under blasphemy law was actually brought in the early 1970s kind of by accident against someone who had a sign in his window saying something like "wanted: radical carpenter speaks to crowds preaching peace." and, on, this person meant jesus, but someone walking past thought it blasphemous and complained. the american civil liberties union got involved pretty quickly, and the prosecution was dropped. more recently, the, a film company own or tried to name -- owner tried to name his company i choose hell productions
on sunday shows looks like the senate might come up with a budget resolution. it includes tax increases. is that the way to solve this thing. >> no, tax increases are not going to solve our problem. ultimately what we have not a revenue problem or a tax problem although our tax code is bloated and distorted and not necessarily complex. we're not going to solve this problem through additional revenue, we'll solve it by change the way we spend money. jon: senator lee. wish you well. it would be interested to see if the balanced budget amendment makes it through this time. i have my doubts. but again, thanks for joining us today. >> thank you. >> something you probably have in your medicine cabinet right now could be a real danger to your eyesight. the brand new study linking a common painkiller to an increased risk of blindness that is coming up next. >>> plus israelis heading to the polls today. will benjamin netanyahu win another term and how the election results for our closest ally in the middle east could affect the region. >> plus what it means for an impending showdown with iran. w
't marginalize it all. >> say on the tax policy, they fought on raising taxes on the rich. 60% to 70% of the public agree with the president on that. so they're marginalized on a lot of policy matters, and the stupid comments don't come out. >> coming out for lower taxes are not going to get you beat. why don't they stick to the strong points? republicans looked ridiculous this week when they decided to go after hillary clinton, who is riding so high in the polls. why did they go after her at the very point she was at her strongest, they attacked. let's take a look. >> i'm glad that you're accepting responsibility. i think that ultimately with your leaving you accept the culpability for the worst tragedy since 9/11, and i really mean that. had i been president at the time and i found that you did not read the cables from benghazi, you did not read the cables from ambassador stevens, i would have relieved you of your post. i think it's inexcusable not to know of the request for security that really i think cost these people their lives. >> madam secretary, you let the consulate become
hopefully with full understanding of how difficult the tax is. and finally, last couple of days we have been ability to event what was called a nuclear option in the united states senate. a lot of people don't appreciate how important it was for us to get that done. chuck schumer and i and others and dick durbin were involved a bistart san effort to avert that. we were able to do that with the co-leaders. there is a desire for bipartisanship here in this body. i think we can show the country and the world that we are capable of tackling this issue, a looming and terrible issue that has to be resolved in a bipartisan basis and i believe the majority of the american people support such an effort and i want to thank my colleagues again and the ever congenial senator schumer. >> now we'll have the even more congenial senator durbin. >> i want to thank my colleagues. john mccain, thanks. we have been down this road before but i feel very good about our chances this time. chuck, thank you for your leadership on this. i'm sure that marco and bob and lindsey and i understand that you've been the for
of the electorate behind them. >> very briefly, jared, if you can, eric cantor says taxes are done, no taxes, so i guess another stalemate to come on that? >> i see -- it's hard to see how the budget that's going to come out of the senate, and i think patty murray is going to do a very good job on that, is going to reconcile with the kind of budgets we're looking at. >> jared bernstein who absolutely deserves the nobel peace prize, thank you, sir, thank you for joining us. and we'll be right back. ♪ alright, let's go. ♪ shimmy, shimmy chocolate. ♪ shimmy, shimmy chocolate. ♪ we, we chocolate cross over. ♪ yeah, we chocolate cross over. ♪ [ male announcer ] introducing fiber one 80 calorie chocolate cereal. ♪ chocolate. 80 calorie chocolate cereal. did you just turn your ringer off so no one would interrupt and.us?one. oh no, i... just used my geico app to get a tow truck. it's gonna be 30 minutes. oh, so that means that we won't be stuck up here, for hours, with nothing to do. oh i get it, you wanna pass the time, huh. (holds up phone) fruit ninja!!! emergency roadside assistance. ju
is an incremental process. the responsibility of congress is to appropriate, to tax and spend that money. that's become -- to say the job of congress is to tax as soon as i put it in that language, it's an id logical statement rather than a descriptive statement of the job of congress. >> we are seeing the same thing. the question becomes, i disagree with you a little bit. we are at 8.9% unemployment rate. i don't know if it's the job of the government to create jobs, i believe it's the job of the government to create an environment to create jobs. what does that mean? if we don't have our fiscal house in order, how is the government, excuse me, the private sector going to look at us from a responsibility? >> everyone saying stimulate now, cut back later. we did one stimulus bill, it wasn't large enough and we didn't follow it up. >> whose fault was that? >> we need to stimulate now. we are not doing any stimulus and talking about cutting back. it's what they say not to do. >> bobby jindal, who we give a hard time to on this show regularly, he said something similar to this on the rnc meeting
and paying property tax for seven years. he avenue posted this no trespassing notice. no surprise, his neighbors are not amused. >> nobody's happy. >> reporter: it could happen anywhere. adverse possession is legal in all 50 states. in his case bank of america told abc2 news we filed the appropriate and immediate legal action to have this trespass ser removed from the property. for now he's living the life of luxury for free. karen travers, abc2 news, washington. >>> bad judgment or an abuse of power. that's the question the judge is asking in the john leopold misconduct trial. >>> sometimes it's hard not to snack in the middle of the night, but before you dive into that bag of chips, we have some tips to help you curb that habit. those stories and more coming up at 6. >>> ravens fans are gearing up for the super bowl and purple pride can be seen just about anywhere. >> the ravens super bowl march brightens the atmosphere for even the tiniest of fans. >> the baltimore ravens may be underdogs but not in baltimore and not at st. joe's medical center where the ravens fan base is thick. an
illinois being in so much debt, they were talking about this 67% tax increase on the people who live in that state. what ramifications will this now have on that tax rate? >> that tax increase was supposed to be temporary, start to run out, put it down again in 2015. odds are it will not be temporary. odds are it will be made permanent. >>brian: i love your last point of view. you said look for the businesses and wealthy people to pull a mickelson? >> yeah, sure. >>brian: which means? >>gretchen: nothing to do with their golf swing. >> mickelson threatens to leave california because of high taxes and declining state finances. why shouldn't wealthy people do the same in illinois? taxes are way up there. the state's finances are a mess. they know they're going to call on the rich to pay your fair share. they know it's coming. >>gretchen: some businesses have gone to wisconsin and indiana. >>brian: what you're talking about is if they're going to increase the taxes in the state itself, that's one thing. but -- and this is something you've been hedging for over a year -- there's always a
Search Results 0 to 49 of about 97 (some duplicates have been removed)